Amid the obstructionists claims that health care reform is socialist or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice defensive medicine thats costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put tort reform on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patients damages was the answer to his states problems. And the American Medical Association has said it wont support any health reform bill that doesnt reduce liability for doctors. If the bill doesnt have medical liability reform in it, then we dont see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs, James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, dont believe thats true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.

Amid the obstructionists claims that health care reform is socialist or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice defensive medicine thats costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put tort reform on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patients damages was the answer to his states problems. And the American Medical Association has said it wont support any health reform bill that doesnt reduce liability for doctors. If the bill doesnt have medical liability reform in it, then we dont see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs, James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, dont believe thats true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.

Ya cause when a lawyer like Edwards wins a multimillion dollar suit claiming cerebral Palsy is a fault of a doctor we have no problems right? You may want to do a little research, there are places in this country that you can not get a baby delivered because of idiotic lawsuits like that one. No doctor will risk a lawsuit working there. And the cost of Insurance for doctors just keeps climbing.

And I don't believe your source, NOR do I discount an easy fix even if it was that small. WHY because we are talking about MILLIONS of dollars that effect the charges a doctor , a clinic or a Hospital charge.

Once again read up on Edwards great law career and how he turned birth defects into somehow being a doctors fault at delivery. All by claiming he could speak for a baby in a womb.

Amid the obstructionists claims that health care reform is socialist or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice defensive medicine thats costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put tort reform on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patients damages was the answer to his states problems. And the American Medical Association has said it wont support any health reform bill that doesnt reduce liability for doctors. If the bill doesnt have medical liability reform in it, then we dont see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs, James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, dont believe thats true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of taking on the trial lawyers.

This is the answer from a doctor and a politician, said Dean. Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, thats the truth.

Amid the obstructionists claims that health care reform is socialist or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice defensive medicine thats costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put tort reform on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patients damages was the answer to his states problems. And the American Medical Association has said it wont support any health reform bill that doesnt reduce liability for doctors. If the bill doesnt have medical liability reform in it, then we dont see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs, James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, dont believe thats true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

Click to expand...

Gunny...what the loons are leaving out is the cost of malpractice insurance. There wouldn't be a need for a doctor to have to pay 100,000 dollars a year +++++ for malpractice insurance if there was tort reform but these left wing ideologues fail to see anything past the Messiah's last speech touting government control of everyone's life from cradle to grave.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!